What's new

US Navy says China’s military buildup won’t stop patrols

.
And what is the goal of American warships patrol in South China Sea? Have they achieve their objective? And what is their objective? To sail around harmlessly and see China build the islands? Or what?
China can build up the islands but if China cannot use them to control the SCS because the US contains China, then you can call it a wast of money from China.
 
.
China can build up the islands but if China cannot use them to control the SCS because the US contains China, then you can call it a wast of money from China.

It's so hilarious :rofl: How you call that to contain China when US patrol come only once a month or less while we're there in SCS 24/7, 356 days with these bases, we monitor all ships and air traffic that pass through SCS under our noses and we don't need to claim to control SCS but everyone already know the meaning and the effect of our present :lol:.

and Here the definition of Contain
1. have or hold (someone or something) within.
"coffee cans that once contained a full pound of coffee"
synonyms: hold, carry, accommodate, seat
"the boat contained four people"

2. control or restrain (oneself or a feeling).

US can't hold, restrain, control China from buildup in SCS and you claim that US contain China...LMAO
 
.
Guys ... all of the last and most recent posts are off-topic and insulting - strangely in both discretions against China and India - and you know it.

Either continue to discuss on topic or stop posting.


Deino
 
.
Guys ... all of the last and most recent posts are off-topic and insulting - strangely in both discretions against China and India - and you know it.

Either continue to discuss on topic or stop posting.


Deino
Close the mr @Deino this thread is/will becoming a troll feast flame baiting thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
And what is the goal of American warships patrol in South China Sea? Have they achieve their objective? And what is their objective? To sail around harmlessly and see China build the islands? Or what?
All for political show. Washington knows it can't do much about it, so the next best thing is to sail warships around them. Honestly, it's a win-win scenario; China continues militarizing islands and expanding its maritime scope while the US gives the impression that it is challenging the islands without having to go to war. If you're the United States, this is the best you can do without igniting war or causing serious diplomatic harm.
 
.
well china could do the same back to USA in the atlantic ocean

but of course china never instituted a blockade of SCS

military base buildup in islands owned by china, not far from china and everyone loses their mind.

Meanwhile there are plenty of military bases in british and french overseas islands yet no one blinks an eye
 
.
It's so hilarious :rofl: How you call that to contain China when US patrol come only once a month or less while we're there in SCS 24/7, 356 days with these bases,...
That is all we need to do. Containment is not restricted to the physical realm but also the logical. As long as one power can navigate the SCS without being hindered by China at any time, everyone will see the region as free for all.
 
.
That is all we need to do. Containment is not restricted to the physical realm but also the logical. As long as one power can navigate the SCS without being hindered by China at any time, everyone will see the region as free for all.

According to your logic, we sail though Malacca strait without being hindered by US navy in Singapore mean US is useless over there? and we logically contain US :D
 
.
According to your logic, we sail though Malacca strait without being hindered by US navy in Singapore mean US is useless over there? and we logically contain US :D
Failure in 'logic'. We do not claim that body of water as our own, nor have we tried to assert any form of control of access to it, nor have we established any permanent or semi-permanent stations in the region.

But hey...Failure in logic is typical for you guys here. China can sail thru the poles and claims the US is 'helpless' in containing China if that will make you happy.
 
.
Failure in 'logic'. We do not claim that body of water as our own, nor have we tried to assert any form of control of access to it, nor have we established any permanent or semi-permanent stations in the region.

But hey...Failure in logic is typical for you guys here. China can sail thru the poles and claims the US is 'helpless' in containing China if that will make you happy.

Go read over your post #27, for you what you said is logic but when I use your logic, you call that as failure in "logic"...LMAO
 
.
Go read over your post #27, for you what you said is logic but when I use your logic, you call that as failure in "logic"...LMAO
Of course you had a failure of logic. The context of 'containment' is to arrest an expansion. The US is not expanding our territorial waters claim in the Malacca Strait, do we? China is trying to claim the entirety of the SCS as hers. Therefore, we are containing you even if all we do is sail thru the area just one a month. We do not even need a fleet to make that containment obvious for all to see. Any US flagged vessel will do the job.
 
.
Of course you had a failure of logic. The context of 'containment' is to arrest an expansion. The US is not expanding our territorial waters claim in the Malacca Strait, do we? China is trying to claim the entirety of the SCS as hers. Therefore, we are containing you even if all we do is sail thru the area just one a month. We do not even need a fleet to make that containment obvious for all to see. Any US flagged vessel will do the job.

You just contradict yourself first: you said containment is to arrest an expansion: did US stop China from expansion on it own territory? or maybe US has no legitimacy to interfere into China business then you turn around by claiming that sail thru is considered as containment :lol:, if that how you define a containment then it's fine with us, we like this one better.
 
.
You just contradict yourself first: you said containment is to arrest an expansion: did US stop China from expansion on it own territory? or maybe US has no legitimacy to interfere into China business then you turn around by claiming that sail thru is considered as containment :lol:, if that how you define a containment then it's fine with us, we like this one better.
The only 'contradiction' here is in your mind because of you failed to understand the context.

China is trying to claim the entirety of the SCS as her territorial waters, that is the expansion. Do not try to deny or even spin it. No one in this forum is a diplomat and everyone can see what China is doing. So it is no mystery at all to seasoned diplomats working on their countries' behalf on what China is REALLY doing.

So as long as one power can sail thru the SCS with China helpless, China is very much contained. The SCS will remain free for anyone to travel thru.
 
.
The only 'contradiction' here is in your mind because of you failed to understand the context.

China is trying to claim the entirety of the SCS as her territorial waters, that is the expansion. Do not try to deny or even spin it. No one in this forum is a diplomat and everyone can see what China is doing. So it is no mystery at all to seasoned diplomats working on their countries' behalf on what China is REALLY doing.

So as long as one power can sail thru the SCS with China helpless, China is very much contained. The SCS will remain free for anyone to travel thru.

Again sail thru the SCS is considered as stopping China expansion:o:, so to stop a man from claiming that house what you have to do it's walk across his front yard as way to prove that you're stopping his claim....make sense :lol: I'm wondering if the man claiming the house is hopeless or if the man that walk across the front yard is. :rofl:
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom